Bentley S. Poitra, et al., Appellants, vs. Emily Short, et al., Respondents, North Star Mutual Insurance, Respondent
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A20-0491 Bentley S. Poitra, et al., Appellants, vs. Emily Short, et al., Respondents, North Star Mutual Insurance, Respondent. Filed December 28, 2020 Affirmed Ross, Judge Crow Wing County District Court File No. 18-CV-19-3213 Matthew J. Barber, James S. Ballentine, Robert L. Lazear, Schwebel Goetz & Sieben, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant-parents) Kenneth H. Bayliss III, Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A., St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondents Short, et al.) Joseph M. Bromeland, Maschka, Riedy, Ries & Frentz, Mankato, Minnesota (for respondent North Star Mutual Insurance) Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION ROSS, Judge Two-year-old appellant Bentley Poitra was living with his grandparents and in their backyard when their Alaskan Malamute dog attacked him, biting his face, fracturing his skull, lacerating his face, and blinding his right eye. The grandparents’ home insurer refused to cover Bentley’s medical expenses, citing a resident-relative exclusion clause in the insurance policy. The district court agreed with the insurer and dismissed the Poitra family’s declaratory-judgment action against the insurer for failure to state a claim. In this appeal, the Poitras argue that the resident-relative exclusion clause contravenes public policy. Because supreme court precedent defeats the argument, we affirm. FACTS Bentley Poitra was two years old and residing with his maternal grandparents, respondents Jamie and Emily Short, in March 2014. One day, Bentley was in the Shorts’ backyard when the Shorts’ Alaskan Malamute attacked him, biting his head repeatedly. The bites seriously injured Bentley, leaving him with a fractured skull and a blinded right eye. Bentley’s father Justen Poitra and paternal grandmother Debra Poitra filed a negligent-supervision claim against the Shorts in 2018, and they filed a declaratory-judgment action against the Shorts’ insurer, North Star Mutual Insurance Company, seeking coverage under the Shorts’ homeowners’ policy. An exclusion clause in the policy was central to the insurance dispute in the district court. The policy’s resident-relative exclusion clause says, “Personal Liability does not 2 apply to: ‘bodily injury’ to ‘you’, and if residents of ‘your’ household, ‘your’ relatives and person(s) under the age of 21 in ‘your’ care or in the care of ‘your’ resident relatives.” The issue in the district court was not whether the circumstances fit the clause but whether the clause should be held invalid as a matter of public policy. The district court rejected the idea and dismissed the Poitras’ declaratory-judgment action for failure to state a claim under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(e). This appeal follows. DECISION The Poitras argue that the district court erred by dismissing their claim. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for a failure to state a claim under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(e). Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, 663 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn. 2003). The Poitras contend specifically that the resident-relative exclusion contravenes public policy under Minnesota Supreme Court precedent. Under long-standing precedent, an insurer and its insured are free to enter into contracts delineating coverage and excluding from coverage any specific risks, losses, or persons for which statutes and public policy do not require insurers to cover. Bobich v. Oja, 104 N.W.2d 19, 24 (Minn. 1960). For the following reasons, we see no rationale to consider invalidating the exclusion on public-policy grounds. First, the Poitras have identified no statutory basis to invalidate the exclusion. We have considered potentially applicable statutes. See Minn. Stat. §§ 65A.27–.302 (2018). We are satisfied that they do not require a homeowner’s insurer to cover personal injuries. 3 They therefore do not prevent North Star from excluding any type of personal injury from the Shorts’ policy. Second, caselaw also does not suggest that public policy invalidates the exclusion. It is true, as the Poitras emphasize, that the supreme court in Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 330 N.W.2d 113, 115 (Minn. 1983), recounted that it has gradually outlawed intrafamily tort immunity since the 1960s, culminating with abolishing parental tort immunity in Anderson v. Stream, 295 N.W.2d 595, 600–01 (Minn. 1980). But the Ryan opinion plainly defeats the Poitras’ public-policy argument. It held that public policy does not preclude a homeowner’s insurer from excluding coverage for personal injury to members of the insured’s household. 330 N.W.2d at 115. It relied on “[t]he well-settled general rule” allowing parties freely “to contract as they desire . . . so long as coverage required by law is not omitted and policy provisions do not contravene applicable statutes.” Id. It then specifically rejected the same argument the Poitras make today that household exclusions should be “ineffective because they undermine [the] court’s rationale in limiting the scope of intrafamily tort immunities.” Id. We too must therefore reject the argument. The Poitras would have us disregard Ryan’s holding on the proposition that the Ryan court would have invalidated resident-relative exclusions if only the supreme court had decided Ryan before Anderson. Ryan’s clear reasoning on the point renders this notion not only speculative but clearly wrong. The Poitras alternatively ask us to distinguish Ryan based on this court’s dicta in Minn. Mut. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Manderfeld, 482 N.W.2d 521, 526 (Minn. App. 1992). According to the argument, Manderfeld leaves the door open to invalidate resident-relative exclusion clauses on public-policy grounds. We did offer in 4 Manderfeld a “concern[] that the household exclusion frustrates the public policy, enunciated in Anderson, of compensating persons injured by family members.” Id. But this court’s mere dictum hardly weakens a supreme court holding, and the supreme court later implicitly rejected the Manderfeld dictum. In Reinsurance Ass’n of Minnesota v. Hanks, the supreme court examined a farm multi-peril insurance policy that excluded recovery for bodily injury occurring to the insured and to residents, relatives, and others younger than the age of 21 under the care of the insured or of relatives. 539 N.W.2d 793, 794–95 (Minn. 1995). The Hanks court saw the Ryan case as “involving comparable facts” but did not treat the exclusion as invalid under public policy. Id. at 797. Hanks and Ryan defeat the Poitras’ appeal. Because caselaw establishes that resident-relative exclusions do not contravene public policy, the district court appropriately applied the resident-relative exclusion clause here and, therefore, also appropriately granted North Star’s motion to dismiss. Affirmed. 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
